Skip to main content

No claim if death is caused by fall due to ill health

The difference between a fall due to ill health, and a genuine accidental fall, would determine whether a claim under an accident insurance policy is payable or not.

Case Study: Kishan Lal Jain suffered a fall in his bedroom on March 16, 2009, resulting in a serious head injury. He was admitted to Jaslok Hospital and kept in the ICU. The hospital had registered a medico-legal case and reported it to Gamdevi police station, which recorded his statement. Kishan Lal was discharged in two days.

On March 23, 2009, Kishan Lal had another fall at home, injuring his head once again. He was admitted to Jaslok in an unconscious state, where he expired on April 7, 2009 due to cardio-respiratory failure.

Later, in July 2009, his son Pravinkumar came across an individual personal accident insurance policy obtained by his deceased father from New India Assurance.

Pravinkumar lodged a claim under the policy. The insurance company rejected it, saying the claim had neither been filed in time nor had submitted documents showing cause of death. Then, Pravinkumar filed a complaint before the South Mumbai District Consumer Forum. He sought the insured amount along with a compensation of Rs 5 lakh for mental agony and Rs 50,000 towards costs. To bolster his case, he relied on the medical opinion of Dr M S Kamath.

The insurance company contested the case. Advocate Sapna Bhuptany argued that a claim under an accident policy could be entertained only in case of an accidental death, whereas Kishan Lal had died a natural death. The hospital case papers said the first fall was due to giddiness caused by a sudden onset of vertigo. The death summary of the second hospitalization records a repeat attack of vertigo. Medical history also reveals that Kishan Lal was suffering from diabetes and high blood pressure. He also had convulsions for which he was advised neurological evaluation and treatment through anti-epileptic drugs. The cause of death is certified as cardio-respiratory failure. There is no mention that death occurred due to any accident or head injuries.

In its judgment of March 11, 2015 delivered by S M Ratnakar for the bench, along with S G Chabukswar, the forum noted that the medical certificate did not reveal an accidental death. The forum differentiated between an accidental fall resulting in an injury, and a fall due to ill health. Accordingly, the forum dismissed the complaint.

Conclusion: If a person suffers a fall, resulting in death, due to violent, visible, and external means, it would be an accidental death, and a claim under an accident insurance policy will be payable. But if the fall is due to ill health, it would be considered a natural death.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Consumers-cannot-claim-accident-insurance-if-death-is-caused-by-fall-due-to-ill-health/articleshow/46901715.cms

Comments

Most viewed this month

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...